Headlines

Politico

At CPAC, gay marriage on back burner

“CPAC is no less ideological, but it’s becoming more tactical and strategic,” said pollster Kellyanne Conway, who also believes Republicans are making a mistake not making clear where they stand and adopting what she called “a defensive crouch.”

Save for a punchline from GOP mega-donor Foster Friess about the Chick-fil-A protests and a full-throated speech from former Sen. Jim DeMint, the conversation from CPAC’s main stage about gay marriage has been non-existent. More time was devoted to panel discussions about women’s issues and abortion than to gay marriage…

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, one of the culture warriors of the 1990s, touched briefly on social issues. But he did so with a broad stroke, invoking God and tradition and faith without denouncing gay marriage. Last year, Santorum was far clearer as he pitched himself as the conservative alternative to Romney in his appeals on social issues, and in 2011, he told the Washington Blade there should be a federal marriage amendment.

Even Rubio’s brief mention won him praise from the conservative Family Research Council, which blasted other Republicans for keeping quiet on gay marriage in an email to its supporters Friday night.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

To be sure, the conservative base has by no means discarded its objections to gay marriage, as the Chick-fil-A protests last year underscored. One of the opening-day panels featured the National Organization for Marriage making the case against same-sex nuptials (the group’s leader, Brian Brown, told Slate Friday night that Portman should expect a primary). And the gay group GOProud was not invited to take part in the festivities this year, for the second year in a row.

In which case, the point of this article is…?

It was just a year ago that then-candidate Mitt Romney declared himself “severely conservative” from the stage and boasted that he, as Massachusetts’ governor, had prevented the state from becoming “the Las Vegas of gay marriages.”

But in his remarks on Friday – a sort of swan song to the CPAC crowd – Romney avoided social issues and even made a pitch for blue- and- purple-state governors like Chris Christie, who wasn’t invited.

The article conveniently omits that Massachusetts was the first state to ever implement gay marriage, and who was the governor for making sure it would happen? Mitt Romney. So why is it a surprise that a guy who campaigned to Ted Kennedy’s left on social issues and “gay rights” didn’t criticize gay marriage?

If Politico wants to use Romney’s speeches as a means of gauging conservative sentiments, then they really need to brush up on their understanding of the GOP.

For all the lectures we get that the focus is and should be about fiscal conservatism, you wouldn’t know it by how this blog and others (I’m looking at you aoshq) are always yapping about ssm. They, like federal judges, don’t care that people don’t support ssm. (Oh, and we’re on to your rigged polls that they do, AP.)

To be sure, the conservative base has by no means discarded its objections to gay marriage, as the Chick-fil-A protests last year underscored.

Huh? The Chick-fil-A protests consisted solely of liberal freaktards, dressed as clowns and giant lady parts, screaming (about something or other), making out in Chick-fil-A parking lots and vandalizing private property. Conservatives did not protest – we just went to Chick-fil-A for lunch (in great numbers). The Chick-fil-A protests underscored what a bunch of anti-freedom, immature losers obama’s liberals are.

I recommend everyone read What is Marriage Man and Woman: A Defense by Girgis et al.
Marriage doesn’t get a prefix. Not even the Greeks and Romans among the most homoerotic societies ever, called gay relationships marriages. Even they understood the relationships were fundamentally different. Its only because too many of us are so poorly educated, and those who are in positions to educate us are so craven, that this is even an issue at all today. Just over thirty years ago homosexuality was a mental illness. Now we’re about to criminalize Christianity because they consider it a sin?
No its time to stand up to the libs and their libertarian buddies and say no.

And we need to keep in mind that many on the redefining side don’t care what those supporting marriage say. They’re not arguing in good faith. Our concerns are invalid, our reservations unfounded, our faith misguided, our evidence inconsequential. They just want what they want, the consequences be damned.